I think fixed in this case means "a small number extended by standards body
work",
rather than 'anyone can make a new one". Interoperability at the atomic
datatype
level is important. But maybe I am being near-sighted. In languages like
python
it is important to have a very well-defined common set of atomic datatypes,
but the again the ability to make new ones is rather neat.
I guess I could imagine the implementations of code for integer, real,
floating point
and rational arithmetic being handled as optimizations.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG
Telecon 2002-10-18]
> At 01:31 AM 11/1/02 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > > I feel that "^^", being syntactic, should only be usable with a
> > > fixed set of type URIs.
> >
> >that's indeed better
>
> I have a concern with that. For example rational values as described in
> CC/PP. I'm rather concerned that the type system would be closed.
>
> [later]
>
> Or does "fixed" in this context mean non-variable? I have no problem with
> that.
>
> #g
>
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
>